More and more, I’m thinking that, in an effort to objectively quantify player performance, we’re really going off the deep end. I fully understand why each organization would want to know exactly how productive each player in the league is. After all the amount of productivity=relative value=$$$$. With player salaries ever on the rise, this would certainly help teams avoid overpaying for the productivity they get from each player.

For example, if the sabermetricians can pinpoint the exact productivity value of Ryan Howard, it will make the Phils decision, regarding whether or not to sign him, easier. Once you quantify Howard, you can then use the current market to decide how many years and dollars he is actually worth.

Even if Bill James and his followers are able to tease that kind of information out of the numbers, I think it is still flawed. I say that because the numbers accrue to individual players, BUT they are generated in a team setting. Individual players are affected by the others in the lineup and the game situation when they step into the batter’s box.

You mentioned leadership. How do you quantify that? In my mind, it is beyond question that there are certain players who make their teammates better. They help others put up better numbers, but it doesn’t show up in their productivity.

What if we compared the productivity of #8 hitters in the NL against that of #9 hitters in the AL. The #9 hitter in the AL is followed by the lead off man in the lineup. There are not many “outs” in the typical AL lineup. Any pitcher is going to go after the ones that are there. In most situations, the pitcher will go after the #9 hitter, so as not to face the lead off man(or to not face him in an RBI situation). Therefore, the #9 hitter will get more pitches to hit, giving him a better chance of being productive. In the NL, the #8 hitter is followed by the pitcher. He is dealing with the exact opposite scenario. In almost every situation, a pitcher would chose to pitch to the opposing pitcher instead of the #8 hitter, What happens? The pitcher nibbles, throws off speed stuff, tries to get the #8 hitter to chase, etc…He’s getting nothing to hit. Added to that, when the #8 hitter comes up with 2 outs and runners on, he is going to expand his strike zone and go after pitches he normally wouldn’t, knowing full well that he is the best chance the team has at driving the runners in. In many cases, the #8 hitter swings at a bad pitch and grounds out or strikes out, thereby decreasing his productivity. I have a very strong feeling that if you compared the productivity numbers of #9 hitters in the AL and #8 hitters in the NL, you would find that the #9 AL hitters have the edge. I also think if you switched every #8 hitter in the NL with every #9 hitter in the NL, the stat advantage would stay in the AL.

To me, that statistical advantage is a mirage. It is a function of the league and team dynamic more than it is a reflection of the actual ability and productivity of the individual players. The individual players are basically a victim of circumstances. The faulty disparity in the numbers, upon which the sabermetricians base their calculations, will cause them to wrongly overvalue some players and overvalue others.

The other problem I have with all these numbers and values is that we are losing the human element. Boiling human performance down to these acronyms just sort of takes the romance out of it, you know? I still have a love for “the game”. I would much prefer the usual barroom debate about whether Lefty Grove or Steve Carlton was the better pitcher over whether or not VORP is a valid measuring tool.

Why? I have this idea that’s been gnawing at me: is the city of Philadelphia overrating the Phillies’ “Big 3″? I wanna find out for myself, by looking at some of those sabermetric stats. I’m gonna go with the hypothesis that Rollins, Utley and Howard are overrated and see where that takes me.

They have an interesting idea in there about how some runs are worth more than others, like how in a blowout, a run is worth much less than in a tie game, and that this can be accounted for somehow. The Phils must be last in the league in value per run, like they’ve scored more runs than Team B, but Team B’s value per run is much higher than the Phils. Like I said, I’ll keep reading.

Also, I was thinking about what Pete said about leadership. If that is something that adds value on top of a player’s stats, then doesn’t that mean we could bring in a negative clubhouse influence, like Barry Bonds, and because of the leadership of our Big 3, Barry wouldn’t have such a negative effect? If you bring in all high-character guys, why do you still need so much leadership? All the Phils are good guys, isn’t Jimmy Rollins’ leadership being wasted? Isn’t Utley’s leadership enough for a team of good guys?

SP-Brandon Webb-Diamondbacks
SP-Edinson Volquez-Reds
SP-Jon Lester-Red Sox
SP-Scott Kazmir-Rays
SP-Tim Lincecum-Giants

RP-Joe Nathan-Twins
RP-Johnathan Papelbon-Red Sox
CL-Mariano Rivera-Yankees

It’s my team and I want the best bullpen arms around, so I’m loading up on closers.

P- Jake Peavy, SD
P- Roy Halladay, TOR
P- Ervin Santana, LAA
P- Danny Haren, ARI
P- Tim Lincecum, SF

RP-Carlos Marmol, CHC
RP- Brandon Morrow, SEA
CL- Francisco Rodriguez, LAA